Trades Approval

[Deleted]

I would go with Dave's solution. I like that it gives every GM a chance to vote if they so choose. We have enough active GMs in the league to at least get 10-15 votes on a trade if necessary. I think 24 hours is reasonable enough.

[Deleted]

Tbone (Kelowna) - enjoyed your post. I agree that it is useful (and fun) to read feedback about trades, and I hope that continues whatever happens. My post was not about feedback but rather about whether we need every single trade to be judged (as opposed to ensuing a mechanism to overturn collusion or league-killing type deals). So yes, trade feedback is always good and I think/hope everyone will agree with you on that point.

@frank - enjoyed your post too. You, as well as Eric and a few others, clearly want every trade to be voted on to make sure all trades are "pretty close" / no big winners/losers. I respect that opinion. I believe I've also heard another view (e.g., from Vancouver and StL, for example), that wants to give GMs more freedom, even if it means making a "bad" trade here and there. What I'm not sure about, however, is where the consensus lies in this league, as I haven't heard enough voices.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2014 20:57:25 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

Tbone (Kelowna) - enjoyed your post. I agree that it is useful (and fun) to read feedback about trades, and I hope that continues whatever happens. My post was not about feedback but rather about whether we need every single trade to be judged (as opposed to ensuing a mechanism to overturn collusion or league-killing type deals). So yes, trade feedback is always good and I think/hope everyone will agree with you on that point.

@frank - enjoyed your post too. You, as well as Eric and a few others, clearly want every trade to be voted on to make sure all trades are "pretty close" / no big winners/losers. I respect that opinion. I believe I've also heard another view (e.g., from Vancouver and StL, for example), that wants to give GMs more freedom, even if it means making a "bad" trade here and there. What I'm not sure about, however, is where the consensus lies in this league, as I haven't heard enough voices.

Hey Dave,

you have a bit of a misunderstanding about me.

Here is an email dated back to the creating of our league from Dave our leader to me:



"Dave Schreader
4/1/13



to me

I have started a new league (without Raps AKA London Knights) and I was hoping you would come back with us. It will be a very democratic league with input from everyone and most importantly, trades will be approved and/or rejected by voting.



You can sign up at www.iffhl.proboards.com Let me know what you would like your team name to be and I will set it up.



Dave,

PLK GM
"



I hope you understand that the IFFHL was born from a previous league that was destroyed because to much "freedom" was given in trades. I had no interest in accepting Dave's offer to join the IFFHL unless the trade council was present.

Please stop pushing your point. You've gone on too long about this. Like I said, your fighting the 1% of trades that have ever been vetoed.  99% of the time GMs here are spot on for trading. 

[Deleted]

I agree that it's a bit strange to demolish the trade Panel when it was a great tool to have. No one really got advantage this way. Yes we need to let gm make their own trade with out us interfering which I believe piss off some gm. We are only doing this to prevent anyone to blow up their team and then leaving. We are also try to keep the integrity of the league.

[Deleted]

@eric. No, I don't have access to emails that were not sent to me. What I do have access to are the rules (no mention of trade council) and the trade approval / veto considerations page, which says the following:

"1) Did the GM’s state intention of the trade? Example: player-for-player, instant impact for playoff run, building for the future, or salary cap issues. Simply state what is the goal of this trade and why is it in your best interest to make this deal.

2) Is there any obvious evidence of intentionally “tanking” one of the teams?

3) Were the traded players/picks made publically available for trade? If not, more scrutiny may be required from the trade panel to determine market value of the traded players/picks."

I really find this confusing, since it does not provide very much guidance regarding the criteria for which trades are evaluated (and THAT is the point I've been trying to make). Vancouver's pick WAS advertised, he IS NOT tanking, so I've no idea on what basis it was veto'ed.

And the fact that the process for the trade council has already been changed once since I've got here, and Dave has suggested another change today, seems to suggest to me that the process is either not working well or it is not very well articulated/understood.

The way I read it, Dave's suggestion is not to ban the trade council. It is basically to expand the council to the full league and to shorten the review period.

But that doesn't answer my question...and it's a question: is it the intention of the league to ensure that there are no clear winners and losers in a trade? If it is, then why not clearly articulate this?

Imprecise/unclear rules lead to chaos and confusion, imo.

@frank. Another great post, keep it up.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

May 28, 2014 21:56:53 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

@eric. No, I don't have access to emails that were not sent to me. What I do have access to are the rules (no mention of trade council) and the trade approval / veto considerations page, which says the following:

"1) Did the GM’s state intention of the trade? Example: player-for-player, instant impact for playoff run, building for the future, or salary cap issues. Simply state what is the goal of this trade and why is it in your best interest to make this deal.

2) Is there any obvious evidence of intentionally “tanking” one of the teams?

3) Were the traded players/picks made publically available for trade? If not, more scrutiny may be required from the trade panel to determine market value of the traded players/picks."

I really find this confusing, since it does not provide very much guidance regarding the criteria for which trades are evaluated (and THAT is the point I've been trying to make). Vancouver's pick WAS advertised, he IS NOT tanking, so I've no idea on what basis it was veto'ed.

And the fact that the process for the trade council has already been changed once since I've got here, and Dave has suggested another change today, seems to suggest to me that the process is either not working well or it is not very well articulated/understood.

The way I read it, Dave's suggestion is not to ban the trade council. It is basically to expand the council to the full league and to shorten the review period.

But that doesn't answer my question...and it's a question: is it the intention of the league to ensure that there are no clear winners and losers in a trade? If it is, then why not clearly articulate this?

Imprecise/unclear rules lead to chaos and confusion, imo.

@frank. Another great post, keep it up.

It is working well though, the Canucks-Surrey trade was the 2nd vetoed trade in over a year and technically it was withdrawn along with the other rejected trade. There is 4 pages of approved trades and 2 trades that were withdrawn in the rejected folder. TAB has vetoed 0 trades since this league started and yet there is still complaints about freedom and whining about power given to a council. WE HAVE VETOED 0 TRADES, I just don't understand where this perception comes from that we are limiting GM freedom and stopping teams from making trades they want to make.

If there were multiple vetoed trades then I'd get it, but what are people complaining about? That the 2 withdrawn trades ended up being completed with the GM who was questioned getting a better return?

I'm not as passionate about TAB as Eric and Frank and I'm fine with getting rid of it in favour of an experienced member working with a new GM for a period of time to help with trades. The negativity and backlash over a panel that has never limited a GM's freedom once since the creation of the league is completely ridiculous and needs to stop IMO.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

The point was to stop wildly unfair trades since before this league started a bunch of us were in this exact same league, but with a different commish. He made 2 deals landing him Stamkos or Giroux and Subban (something like this don't completely remember) for a return that was WAY off in value. There were some questions about his integrity and if the other GM was even real or just another account he made and there was no process in place to block that trade. After time sunk and a bunch of rounds completed he was getting some deserved harsh criticism and deleted the whole league. It was rebooted with the assurance we wouldn't let that type of trade happen again and a panel was born.

We have no vetoes since we have good GMs and although it theoretically is unnecessary at this point due to the quality of this league it is still nice to have a safeguard to protect league integrity. I do think some GMs need to be less outspoken against deals if they dislike them, but the fact remains that the panel is still more or less a formality that only exists to stop crazy deals that 5GMs or the whole league would recognize as vetoable. We aren't meant to use our opinions to influence deals and with our trade approval record it is indisputable that this isn't being done regardless of some negative comments directed towards a GM making a trade that didn't need to be made publicly.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

The reason i withdrew the trade with Kelowna was because of the vetoes making me realize i made a bad trade and making me 2nd guess myself. I appreciate the Panel because of that i evaded something that could have ended up pretty bad.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2014 5:36:25 GMT -5 WillyBilly (Tire Fires) said:

The reason i withdrew the trade with Kelowna was because of the vetoes making me realize i made a bad trade and making me 2nd guess myself. I appreciate the Panel because of that i evaded something that could have ended up pretty bad.

Exactly, I feel as gm it is our respoinsibility to evolve as gm and become smarter ones with time. At times I feel it would be better off for the gm to live with their mistake by not vetoing any deals but would the league be better off by doing that ? I really don't think so. I love how this league isn't afraid of articulate how we feel about any topic which I believe the 'freedom' in question will never be in danger. I really don't think by keeping the trade Panel would put that freedom into danger. It's simply there to insured the safety,longevity and durability of this league. I simply don't want to be in a league where everything is permitted. Like Buffalo said to insured the longevity of trade Panel would to have some sort of guideline to why a deal should be ruled as insufficient or vetoable. When does guideline are met then it's that much easier to express the reason behind our vetoed. This way I feel the gm will feel more comfortable with the Panel voting on deals and won't be second guessing us out of Bias toward such and such deals.


Hopefully my opinion on this matter as been heard and express to such a extent that I'm not being disrespect for having the back of the Trade Panel.

[burnsy8801(Leafs GM)]

Even as the newest GM I can still appreciate the pros and cons of all the comments regardless of my personal view. It seems like some folks like the input on the trades from the panel and some folks don't want to hear it.
If I make a deal I don't mind saying what I'm doin but I'm not going to belt out my hole strategy and how many minutes I worked on negotiations with the other Gm so in fairness I just want to hear something short and sweet or short and sour unless I'm getting stamkos for Carl gunnarsson than I say have at 'er!

[Golden Seals]

It should be brought up, if it hasn't already, that a 24 hour voting period wouldn't work when a pick that is currently otc is traded.